Models of Social Change in Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar's A Mind at Peace Undergraduate Research ...

57 Pages·2017·0.29 MB·English

by  Laila Ujayli

Appropriating a Golden Age:
Models of Social Change in Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar’s A Mind at Peace

Undergraduate Research Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation “with Honors Research
Distinction in English” in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University

by
Laila Ujayli

The Ohio State University
April 2018

Project Advisor: Professor Steven Fink, Department of English
Ujayli 1
Section I: Introduction
In 2009, former president Barack Obama visited Turkey and met with Deniz Baykal, the
leader of Turkey’s opposition party. During their meeting, Baykal gifted Obama two books,
explaining, “So you just don’t understand Turkey through your ties with the governing and
opposition parties in parliament, I’m presenting you with these two works of literature. In these
books you will find the nuances of our culture and identity” (Schuessler).
Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar’s A Mind at Peace was one of these two novels1. In 1948,
Tanpinar published A Mind at Peace in serial form in the newspaper, Cumhuriyet, and then as a
book in 1949 (Göknar 450). The novel grew in popularity after Tanpinar’s death in 1962, and is
now considered a milestone modernist novel of Turkish literature (Göknar 486). English-
speaking readers, however, could not access A Mind at Peace until 2008, when Erdag Göknar
translated the novel into English.
A Mind at Peace centers on a young man named Mümtaz and his struggles coping with
his cousin İhsan’s illness, the demise of his summer romance with an older woman, Nuran, and
the suicide of his rival, Suad. In the novel, Mümtaz, an aspiring historical fiction writer,
expresses his frustration with his own novel-in-progress. “Does a novel have to start at one point
and end at another?” he asks. “Do characters have to move rigidly like locomotives on fixed
rails? Maybe it’s sufficient if the story line takes life itself as a framework, gathering it around a
few characters” (213). According to Mümtaz, a novel only needs to adhere to a single condition:
“The narrative should describe us and our contexts” (213).
Mümtaz’s thoughts about his own work reflect the structure of A Mind at Peace.
Tanpinar gathers the novel around four central characters, each serving as the title of one of the

1 Sait Faik Abasiyanik wrote the second novel Baykal presented to President Obama (Schuessler).
Ujayli 2
book’s four parts. Although all four parts include flashbacks to past events, the narrative proper
of the first and final parts, “İhsan” and “Mümtaz,” is told over the span of twenty-four hours, as
Mümtaz walks through Istanbul on the eve of the Second World War. The middle parts, “Nuran”
and “Suad,” span a single summer, recounting the story of Mümtaz’s romance with Nuran, from
their first meeting to their eventual separation.
By exploring the characters’ personal lives, A Mind at Peace’s highlights the Turkish
experience. Throughout the novel, characters reflect on life in Istanbul—the streets, the culture,
and the political upheaval that characterized the 1920s and 1930s. No character appears satisfied
with the current state of affairs. However, each has a different perspective on what Turkey
should be in the future. By using Ottoman classical music as a synecdoche for Turkey,
Tanpinar’s primary characters each advocate for a model of social change.
At the time of its publication, A Mind at Peace’s celebration of history and Ottoman
classical music opposed Turkey’s dominant political and social trends. Mustafa Kemal, better
known as Atatürk, had implemented a series of westernizing reforms that tried to separate the
new Turkish state from its Ottoman forefathers. Kemal’s reforms, and the frustrations that
inspired them, are an important component of A Mind at Peace. Therefore, as Mümtaz advises, I
will describe some necessary context.

Section II: From Osman to Atatürk
According to legend, a late-thirteenth century tribal chieftain named Osman dreamed of a
tree that “sprouted from his naval” and encompassed the world in its shade. A Sufi Sheikh told
Osman that the dream meant his family would someday rule over a vast territory. Inspired to
create this Ottoman empire, Osman and his descendants began the process of gradual territorial
Ujayli 3
expansion and consolidation of power. Osman’s dream was realized in 1453, when Mehmed the
Conqueror captured Constantinople, ended the Byzantine Empire, and gave the Ottomans a true
imperial state (Kafadar 152).
In his new capital at Constantinople, Mehmed the Conqueror described himself as “the
ruler of the two seas and the two continents” (Kafadar 152). His description was apt. At its
height, the Ottoman Empire controlled a region that stretched from the Balkans to the Middle
East and across Northern Africa. Ottoman rule was largely decentralized, with provinces
retaining their own languages, religions and customs. While the vast differences between the
Ottomans and their outlying provinces would ultimately figure into the Empire’s decline, the
Empire’s diversity granted the Ottomans a unique legacy.
The multiethnic and multidenominational features of the Ottoman Empire informed its
cultural landscape, particularly in the arenas of music, architecture, and poetry. In his book
Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music, Karl L. Signell writes, “The vast embrace of [the
Ottoman Empire] is reflected in the variety of nationalities, religions, and social stations of
typical composers of the period” (5). Ethnic and religious minorities, as well as women, featured
significantly in Ottoman music, particularly in the folk music of the countryside (Signell 5).
These diverse artistic traditions were also visible in Constantinople’s skyline, where mosque
complexes and medreses blended both Islamic and Byzantine architectural styles. Mystical Sufi
orders, like the Mevlevî, also greatly influenced Ottoman culture by uniting religion and art in
their poetry and music.
Gradually, the Mevlevî Order came to represent the Ottoman artistic and intellectual elite
(Hammarlund 1). The Mevlevî concept of musiki, referring to “intellectually underpinned
music,” was practiced and developed almost exclusively by the Ottoman high classes in
Ujayli 4
cosmopolitan centers like Constantinople, Damascus, and Alexandria (Hammarlund 2-5). Some
politicians and princes began to preserve and compose music (Signell 5). And eventually, musiki
became the purview of the very highest members of the Ottoman Empire—its sultans.
Multiple sultans earned a reputation for their musical talents. Thus, music came to reflect
not only the Ottoman Empire’s culture but also the individuals who presided over the Empire
itself. Moreover, political and cultural changes often occurred simultaneously and were
associated with one another. For example, the first period of major imperial reform coincided
with what is considered to be the Golden Age of Ottoman Classical Music (Signell 5). Sultan
Selim III (1761-1808), a member of the Mevlevî order, a patron of the arts, and a notable
composer, introduced these modernizing reforms, called the “New Order” (Göknar 447). The
New Order would be the first of many reforms implemented during the empire’s lifespan. This
legacy of simultaneous cultural and political transformation would become a predominant theme
in Ottoman history.
As the centuries progressed, the Ottoman Empire’s decentralization plagued its ability to
control its provinces. The unique identities of each province also challenged the Ottoman
Empire’s ability to create a distinct “Ottoman” identity. Furthermore, the Ottomans’ autocratic
structure rapidly lost popularity in the face of Western European modernization and
democratization. The Ottoman Empire attempted to remedy these challenges during the
Tanzimat Era, literally the “Reform Era,” which began in 1839 and ended in 1876 (Findley 11).
The Tanzimat sought to end political decentralization and reassert the authority of the sultans
(Findley 11). In his chapter, “The Tanzimat,” Carter Vaughn Findley writes, “Even as recurrent
crises threatened the superstructure of multinational empire, at its core, state, economy, society,
and culture all displayed great dynamism in this period. The Tanzimat reforms produced new
Ujayli 5
legislation, programmes, institutions, and elites. Statesmen and intellectuals strove to hold
Ottoman society together by redefining Ottoman identity and guaranteeing rights at the
individual, communal, and empire-wide levels” (Findley 37). The Tanzimat’s reforms also
literally changed the face of Constantinople, as the city was nearly entirely rebuilt in Western
styles throughout the nineteenth century, with only the mosque complexes and ancient structures
surviving (Madden 324).
The modernizing reforms of the Tanzimat, however, only sparked a greater desire for
democracy and constitutional government (Madden 324). As a result, two Constitutional Eras
would follow with further reforms, driven first by the Young Ottomans and then the Young
Turks, aimed at pushing for a constitutional government and westernization. Both these
movements, however, would still emphasize the importance of Islam as the foundational basis of
the Ottoman Empire (Madden 343).
Again, these reforms would be insufficient. Ethnic conflict, political upheaval, and
economic challenges plagued the Ottoman Empire in its latter years. Then, nearly six centuries
after its inception, the Ottoman Empire limped into the First World War on behalf of the Central
Powers and signed its death warrant. Despite an important victory at Gallipoli, the Ottoman
Empire and its allies lost the war. Two years after the 1918 armistice, the Treaty of Sévres
divided the Ottoman Empire—distributing significant portions of its territories to the Greeks or
to be governed under French or Italian mandates. A coalition of Western nations would
administer Constantinople, where the Ottoman sultans would rule in name alone (Madden 334).
By the time the Ottoman Empire crumbled to the tune of genocide and political
subjugation, very few were saddened by its departure (Gingeras 5). Its decline, however, would
leave a lasting impression on its subjects. In his book, Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and
Ujayli 6
the End of the Ottoman Empire, Ryan Gingeras argues that the extreme violence and upheaval
that characterized the empire’s final ten years exist as “a critical open wound that many peoples
residing in the Balkans, North Africa, and Caucasus, and the Middle East still carry” (6). The
uneven economic development of Ottoman territories would plague some of its provinces’ ability
to modernize for years. The physical and human cost of genocide and ethnic cleansing,
particularly in the Empire’s Armenian and Greek communities, was enormous. In The
Cambridge History of Turkey, Andrew Mango writes that outside of Constantinople, the
“country was devastated, its population reduced, and the fabric of the multi-ethnic and multi-
confessional society destroyed” (Mango 159). Additionally, the chaos deprived the Ottomans’
citizens and subjects the “prosperity and peace needed for future intellectual and material
growth,” having profound cultural implications (Gingeras 6). Gingeras also writes, “All present-
day nations derived from the empire’s collapse share a common sense of loss and humiliation as
a consequence of this era”(Gingeras 6).
Thus, the Ottoman Empire’s latter years and decline tarnished its legacy. Its final years
created a desire to distance any new successor states from the “loss and humiliation” associated
with the Empire’s decline. The cultural and artistic traditions, like musiki, being so closely
associated with the elite only exacerbated the impetus to diminish any Ottoman vestige, an
impetus that would drive a young commander who rose to notoriety at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal
(Mango 155).
Rallying Turkish Nationalist forces, Mustafa Kemal, later given the surname Atatürk,
drove out the occupying Allied forces in the Turkish War of Independence. In 1922, Kemal
pushed the Greeks out of their gained territories. In 1923, Allied troops evacuated
Constantinople (Madden 337). That same year, an Assembly in Ankara decreed that their new
Ujayli 7
state would be a constitutional republic, moved its capital from Constantinople to Ankara,
renamed Constantinople Istanbul, and officially established the Republic of Turkey (Madden
337).
As Turkey’s first President, Mustafa Kemal was eager to distinguish Turkey from the
Ottoman Empire. In 1924, Kemal and the National Assembly abolished the caliphate and
reduced the power of the country’s religious institutions (Madden 342). After regaining lands
lost to the Greeks, Kemal did not seek to reclaim the Ottoman’s Empire’s former provinces.
Kemal and his supporters wanted to construct Turkey, not resurrect the Ottoman Empire
(Madden 335). As Christians, Muslim Albanians, and Arabs all attained their own distinct states,
the search for an Ottoman identity was replaced by a desire to create a single Turkish national
identity (Mango 162). Kemal and his supporters would work to build this new identity as they
shaped Turkey and cast aside the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.
“Uncivilized people are doomed to remain under the feet of those who are civilized,”
Kemal argued. To Kemal, civilization and modernization equated westernization (Mango 162).
As a result, he implemented a series of economic, social, and cultural reforms that would
synchronize Turkey with the West (Mango 163). He required the adoption of legal surnames, a
Western standard, and adopted the Christian Sunday as the day off instead of the Muslim Friday.
The Gregorian calendar replaced the Muslim calendar (Madden 344). Kemal imposed European
dress, banning the fez and preaching against the veil (Mango 164). In 1928, Roman letters
replaced Arabic script throughout the country (Madden 344). Mango illustrates the concrete
influence of this reform:
Young people who went to school after 1929 could not read books printed in the Arabic
alphabet before that date; after the mid- and late 1930s they could no longer understand
Ujayli 8
these books even if they were printed in the Latin alphabet, for much of the old Arabic
and Persian vocabulary had been banished from the Turkish language (Mango 166-167).
Consequently, the linguistic changes profoundly affected Turkey’s educational system and, when
coinciding with the myriad of other westernizing reforms, widened the new gulf between Turkey
and its Ottoman past.
While Kemal’s reforms did not entirely transform some aspects of Turkey’s conservative
Muslim society, the reforms did rapidly change the country in significant and highly visible
ways, chronicled by scholars and authors at the time. Kemal’s death in 1938, fifteen years after
he took power, was deeply felt by the new country. The loss of such a symbolic figure came at
an especially difficult time in Europe, for one year after Kemal’s death, World War II began.

Section III: Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar
Born in 1901, Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar experienced the dramatic reforms of the Kemalist
Cultural Revolution first-hand. As a young man, Tanpinar watched the Ottoman Empire
collapse. The National Assembly established the Republic of Turkey the same year Tanpinar
received his literature degree from Istanbul University. Like others in his generation, Tanpinar
grew up learning Arabic script, but as a high school teacher and university professor, taught
students who read Turkish in Roman letters. As a result, many of his poems, essays, and novels
highlight the consequences of Turkey’s westernizing reforms and the identity crisis he believed
the reforms created.
Tanpinar’s use of art and literature to engage in political conversations was not atypical
of Turkish novels. In The Cambridge History of Turkey, Erdağ Göknar—the English translator of
A Mind at Peace—explains that Turkish literature was often in conversation with politics.
Ujayli 9
Göknar writes, “By the early 1910s, the novel became overtly politicized and was used as a
vehicle for intellectual debates concerning state and society” (Göknar 473).
In his chapter, “The novel in Turkish: narrative tradition to Nobel Prize,” Göknar devises
a new periodization of Turkish novels that marked eras by important social and political
milestones. In this new periodization, Göknar situates A Mind at Peace in an era he refers to as
“Turkist social nationalism,” which was characterized by a prevalence of national allegories in
which protagonists served as representations of Turkey. A Mind at Peace, however, was distinct
for two main reasons. First, the novel was more complex than the era’s other straightforward
allegories (Göknar 486). Second, A Mind at Peace was one of the first novels to address the
identity crisis arising from Kemalism’s modernizing and westernizing reforms. Göknar writes,
“In Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar’s work, the reader is confronted not with object lessons, morality or
didactic ‘party’ novels espousing the Kemalist vision of society and history, but with a complex
reckoning of the transition between Ottoman and Turkist states” (486).
Turkey’s identity crisis, or mental duality, described the challenge of situating Turkey
within either the East or the West, creating what Tanpinar viewed as a crisis of civilization (Atis
304). Unable to fully embrace either a European or Ottoman identity, Turkey suffered from a
cultural anxiety that inhibited it from creating a meaningful intellectual and cultural narrative.
According Tanpinar, the absence of this narrative promoted mediocrity and created a
dehumanized society, without distinctive art, literature, or identity (Sezer 435).
However, Turkey did not need to construct an entirely new narrative. Instead, Tanpinar
believed that a collective narrative for Turkey should be mined from the past. In his essay
collection, Five Cities, Tanpinar writes, “The day we realize true creativity begins with
preserving what already exists will make us happy” (Tanpinar 463). The desire to preserve the